Would You Take Medication Controlled Remotely via an Implanted Microchip?

The Gate's Foundation has started working on a remote-controlled medication via an implanted microchip that will last for years. This would allow doctors to control a patient's dosage and refills without needing to write prescription and detailed dosage instructions. However, it also raises security concerns - what if a hacker got control of your microchip that dictates your prescription? What about the risk of malpractice and being dosed with something you are unaware of? Would you sign up for this?

The medicine release microchip is not new. The remote control portion is new and allows the dosage to be varied or the device to be disabled. It is not refillable but can last up to 16 years. It's worth mentioning that this is a birth control device.

Fears that you would get some drug you are unaware of are completely baseless. The chip is loaded with a single type of drug.

I would see that these types of systems have some very simple logic to control "overdosing" or "underdosing" based on what it has done. With most medications it is not good to have spikes hence the reason for a chip, it can control a specific dosage over a period of time. I would also expect that the range of control would be very limited because of the size of the chip. One would have to be within an inch or two in order for a signal to penetrate the flesh (ok, fat, I was being polite). The human body is mostly water and getting a signal thru water is just a bit difficult.

Now, fast forward a bit. Say a chip is developed to tread the thyroid. That could be a challenge for ensuring the dosage does not get "hacked" in some way causing behavioral issues where the hacker then "blackmails" or "controls" the target.

Or perhaps a chip to help treat depression or Parkinson's ? I seem to recall that research is underway for both with some promise. The last I seem to recall is how to adjust the chip or have the chip respond to changes so that the patient does not suffer something else (one case on Parkinson's was that the patient became very animated...the muscles were in constant motion).

There is always a risk that whatever can be done legitimately and remotely, could be hacked and manipulated.

I see some value in electronically administered medicine, but it's not something I have any intention of making use of myself. It's a whole other discussion, but pharmaceuticals are used too heavily as medicine when many things could be prevented in other ways.

If one day I can't delay dementia or have Alzheimer's disease I will definitely try those devices. The risks to forget taking medications and to overdose myself will be much greater than the device gets hacked and manipulated. I will trust the device makers and will never worry about the hackers.

I am picturing a "Rizolli and Isles" or maybe an NCIS episode where someone dies from an overdose of, say, insulin that turns out to be the result of someone hacking and ltering the dosage of one of these devices. It will turn out that the spouse , who wouldn't get anything if there was a divorce, has hired an assassin who then hired the hacker. Or, maybe, a movie script involving some international conspiracy and one of these devises implanted in the President and, at a critical moment, hacked and the dosage altered so that the president is killed.

Yeah, no danger of there being a hacker who might want to hack and alter the dosage on these devices just because of "the challenge of doing so and the need to somehow 'tag' the device to prove the hacker had actually done it. ;-)

I saw a mention of "up to 16 years" in the posts above. I would have a concern about the freshness of a medication. I would want some assurance that the medicine won't go stale or lose its effectiveness over time.